Wednesday, May 27, 2015

While the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) has repeatedly claimed that it is intending to regulate e-cigarettes based on the results of scientific research, a close examination of the CTP's research portfolio reveals that the agency is heavily funding research on the potential risks of e-cigarettes but does not have a single long-term clinical trial to evaluate the potential benefits of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation.

It is great to claim to be evidence-based, but if the only evidence you produce is about the risks and none about the benefits, you can't help but conclude that the identified risks outweigh the benefits. And this appears to be exactly how the CTP has stacked the deck.

This bias is apparent even in the CTP's description of its e-cigarette research. In terms of research priorities regarding e-cigarettes, this is how CTP describes them:

"E-cigarette initiation, use (including transitions to other tobacco
products and multiple use), perceptions, dependence, and toxicity."

There's a lot here about potential risks, including youth initiation, dual use, gateway to tobacco product usage, dependence, and toxicity. However, there's nothing here about the potential benefits, such as effectiveness in getting people off cigarettes!

Then, if you examine the current research on e-cigarettes that CTP is funding, you will find plenty of studies on the potential risks of e-cigarettes, but not a single clinical trial that examines the effectiveness of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation or reduction over more than a three-week period.

Thus, the deck is stacked against e-cigarettes. The research will reveal many risks but it cannot possibly identify the most important potential benefit: long-term usefulness in smoking cessation, potentially at a level that exceeds that for current FDA-approved therapies. There's simply no way to find out without conducting such a clinical trial, yet none is being funded by CTP.

Given this heavily biased research agenda, there is no way that the CTP will be able to come up with any conclusion other than that e-cigarette risks outweigh their benefits.

Unfortunately, this is not an objective research plan. Although each individual study, taken separately, may be valid research, the plan as a whole is heavily biased. This story shows how one can bias research results not necessarily by altering the results of a single study, but by crafting a research agenda that stacks the deck toward the desired finding.

The Rest of the Story

Unfortunately, if we want to see research that evaluates the potential benefits of e-cigarettes, we're apparently not going to get it from the agency that is regulating these products. The only hope of obtaining such research is if the e-cigarette industry itself conducts the research. But this is a catch-22 because if the industry conducts the research, anti-smoking advocates will immediately discredit it on those grounds alone.

For good reason, I am therefore not optimistic about the prospects for an evidence-based approach to e-cigarette policy and/or for an evidence-based approach to e-cigarette regulation.

This is tragic, because the end result is to put a protective shield around tobacco cigarette sales and help to ensure that tens of millions of smokers remain addicted to the most toxic consumer product on the market, without the opportunity to transition to a much safer alternative that could save their lives.

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

According to a new electronic cigarette survey study reported at the 2015 FAMRI meeting, as many as 18% of current electronic cigarette users are ex-smokers who may have quit smoking completely as a result of their e-cigarette use. Such a finding would represent perhaps the strongest evidence to date that not only are e-cigarettes helping smokers quit, but that the magnitude of this effect at a population level is massive and is likely to be associated with profound public health benefits.

The key finding of the Harvard study was that in 2014, 20.7% of current electronic cigarette users were former smokers. The important question, of course, is whether these represent ex-smokers who re-initiated nicotine use with e-cigarettes or whether these represent smokers who quit smoking using e-cigarettes and thus are now identified as former smokers who use e-cigarettes.

To try to tease this out, the researchers ascertained how long ago the respondent had quit smoking. One would assume that if the individual had quit smoking many years ago, then their e-cigarette use probably represents a return to nicotine use (i.e., a bad outcome). On the other hand, for more recent quitters, it is likely that the e-cigarette use represents the results of a successful quit attempt (i.e., a good outcome).

For the purposes of their analysis, the researchers set the differentiation of these two groups at quitting more or less than six years ago. Those who quit more than six years ago are almost certainly ex-smokers who have been enticed to return to nicotine use via e-cigarettes. Those who quit less than six years ago could represent smokers who used e-cigarettes to become former smokers.

Using this breakdown, the researchers reported that only 2.8% of current e-cigarette users represent distant former smokers who were presumably attracted back to nicotine use via e-cigarettes. In contrast, 17.9% of current e-cigarette users represent recent former smokers who could conceivably have quit smoking using e-cigarettes.

These data are consistent with a recent report from the UK which notes that during the past year alone, half a million smokers in the UK switched to e-cigarettes, and that most of these are ex-smokers, suggesting that these are smokers who quit smoking via the use of e-cigarettes.

Based on these findings, Deborah Arnott, Chief Executive of ASH, said:

“The number of ex-smokers who are staying off tobacco by using
electronic cigarettes is growing, showing just what value they can have.
But the number of people who wrongly believe that vaping is as harmful
as smoking is worrying. The growth of this false perception risks
discouraging many smokers from using electronic cigarettes to quit and
keep them smoking instead which would be bad for their health and the
health of those around them.”

The Rest of the Story

While the findings from these two studies are similar, the conclusions drawn were polar opposites. The UK study concluded that it appears many smokers are quitting by switching to electronic cigarettes, meaning that e-cigarettes are undermining cigarette use, de-normalizing smoking, and saving lives.

With similar findings, the Harvard study concluded that one-third of current e-cigarette users are nonsmokers, undermining any benefits of smokers switching to electronic cigarettes.

But there's a huge problem with the Harvard study's conclusion: their conclusion assumes that all of the 20.7% of vapers who are ex-smokers represent former smokers who returned to nicotine use due to e-cigarettes. However, as the study itself acknowledges, many of these ex-smokers could actually be individuals who successfully quit smoking using e-cigarettes and now continue to vape to keep themselves off real cigarettes. In fact, the study estimates that the overwhelming majority of these vapers are recent quitters, rather than distant former smokers, suggesting that it may be more likely than not that this group largely represents smokers who switched to e-cigarettes, thus becoming former smokers. Specifically, only 2.8% of vapers were distant former smokers. A full 17.9% of vapers were recent former smokers.

Thus, as one can easily see, the conclusion of the Harvard study is not consistent with its actual findings and appears to reflect a bias against e-cigarettes. Despite having implemented methods to try to differentiate ex-smokers who returned to nicotine use with e-cigarettes from smokers who quit using e-cigarettes, and despite having found that the overwhelming majority of vapers who were former smokers reported that they were recent quitters, the study nevertheless makes the assumption that all of the ex-smokers were former smokers who were enticed back to nicotine use due to e-cigarettes. This is the only way that the study was able to draw as its ultimate conclusion:

"In conclusion, there has been rapid growth in ever and current electronic cigarette use over
the past five years, although growth in current use slowed down from 2013 to 2014. Although smokers are most likely to use these products, almost a third of current users are nonsmokers, undermining potential public health benefits of cigarette smokers possibly switching to electronic cigarettes."

This conclusion doesn't comport with the actual findings of the study. When the study concludes that a third of current e-cigarette users are nonsmokers, it is entirely possible that roughly half of these "nonsmokers" are former smokers who quit smoking successfully using e-cigarettes. Obviously, the difference in these two interpretations is drastic. That the researchers chose to present the findings in a negative way that is not consistent with their own findings seems to indicate a bias against e-cigarettes.

By the way, I fully understand why many anti-tobacco researchers have a strong bias against e-cigarettes. They look like cigarettes and are used like cigarettes. For those of us who have been fighting smoking for our entire careers, it is difficult to condone a behavior that looks just like smoking.

But as some point, we need to be able to put aside our biases and our pre-existing conclusions and objectively examine the actual science. That science does not support the claims that are being made by the major anti-tobacco organizations and health groups and agencies. Unfortunately, the public is not getting an objective view of the evidence because it is being distorted by the ideological biases of the anti-smoking groups.

Friday, May 22, 2015

A new study published yesterday in the journal Addiction refutes an earlier New England Journal of Medicine article which claimed that because of their high levels of formaldehyde, e-cigarettes are actually more hazardous than tobacco cigarettes. That study concluded that vaping could be as much as 15 times more hazardous as smoking in terms of cancer risk:

"If we assume that inhaling formaldehyde-releasing agents carries the
same risk per unit of formaldehyde as the risk associated with inhaling
gaseous formaldehyde, then long-term vaping is associated with an
incremental lifetime cancer risk of 4.2×10−3. This risk is 5 times as high (as compared with the risk based on the calculation of Miyake and Shibamoto shown in Figure 1), or even 15 times as high (as compared with the risk based on the calculation of Counts et al. shown in Figure 1) as the risk associated with long-term smoking."

The new study, by Farsalinos et al., reports that third generation e-cigarettes can produce high levels of formaldehyde, but only under "dry puff" conditions. These are conditions where the e-liquid is overheated and produces a strong, unpleasant taste that no vaper could tolerate for more than one puff. This would be a signal to the vaper to reduce voltage levels. Dr. Farsalinos and colleagues found that under normal vaping conditions, even high power devices produced only minimal amounts of formaldehyde.

The study concludes that:

"Electronic cigarettes produce high levels of aldehyde only in dry puff
conditions, in which the liquid overheats, causing a strong unpleasant
taste that e-cigarette users detect and avoid. Under normal vaping
conditions aldehyde emissions are minimal, even in new-generation
high-power e-cigarettes."

The Rest of the Story

This story illustrates the damage that is being done by anti-smoking researchers and groups which are exaggerating the risks of electronic cigarette use. In this case, the researchers actually argued that vaping might be 15 times worse than smoking in terms of cancer risk! Yet it turns out that their conclusion was invalid and that while e-cigarettes can produce formaldehyde under normal conditions, the levels appear to be minimal and certainly do not produce a risk that compares to that of smoking.

The problem, however, is that this misinformation has already been widely disseminated through the media and by electronic cigarette opponents who picked up on the story. It is too late to take these claims back because the public has already been scared. Moreover, the anti-smoking groups which made these claims will never retract their statements and admit their mistake. They are interested in demonizing e-cigarettes, not finding and telling the truth.

Thursday, May 21, 2015

According to his quote in an article on the web site of the CBS Philadelphia news affiliate, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) lied to the public in order to demonize e-cigarettes and attack e-cigarette companies.

Senator Schumer was quoted as stating:

"E-cigarette companies are stepping over the line by marketing these products to kids and getting them hooked on smoking, and they're hoping that the federal government passes the buck and turns a blind eye to what's happening."

The Rest of the Story

Senator Schumer claims that e-cigarette companies are getting kids hooked on smoking. However, using e-cigarettes is not smoking. E-cigarettes contain no tobacco and involve no combustion; thus, there is no smoke. So claiming that e-cigarette companies that get kids to use their products are hooking them on smoking is simply not true.

Even if what Senator Schumer meant is that the marketing of e-cigarettes gets kids to try e-cigarettes which leads to nicotine addiction and then to smoking addiction, his claim is not true. There is no evidence that e-cigarettes are serving as a gateway to cigarette smoking. In contrast, there is strong evidence that e-cigarettes are not getting nonsmokers addicted to nicotine; nor are they pushing nonsmokers towards smoking. In fact, the current evidence suggests that the opposite is true: e-cigarettes appear to be diverting kids away from smoking combustible tobacco cigarettes.

So the rest of the story is that far from getting kids hooked on smoking, the e-cigarette companies are helping to put a dent in tobacco cigarette sales by diverting adult smokers and youth (smokers and nonsmokers) away from smoking towards e-cigarettes. If the e-cigarettes are guilty of anything, it is getting some smoking youth hooked on vaping, rather than smoking. Given the known trajectory of lifetime smoking among kids who smoke at a young age, this may not be a bad thing.

In his zeal to demonize e-cigarettes and the e-cigarette industry, Senator Schumer is lying to the public. But the irony is that this deception is completely unnecessary. The legislation that Senator Schumer is co-sponsoring would merely ban the marketing of e-cigarettes towards minors. I don't know anyone - including all the e-cigarette companies - who oppose this principle.

So why is it necessary for Senator Schumer to lie?

Is there some sort of rule that e-cigarette opponents are not allowed to simply tell the truth in articulating their arguments and promoting their preferred policies? Why have they stolen an antiquated playbook from Big Tobacco? I thought that playbook had been discarded after the Department of Justice lawsuit, but apparently the politicians and many of the health groups that are opposed to the use of e-cigarettes picked that playbook up out of the trash and revived it. But that playbook has no place in the practice of public health.

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

In a press release from last month, the director of FDA's Center for Tobacco Products - Mitch Zeller - is quoted as stating:

"In today’s rapidly evolving tobacco marketplace, the surge in youth use
of novel products like e-cigarettes forces us to confront the reality
that the progress we have made in reducing youth cigarette smoking rates
is being threatened."

The Rest of the Story

Two of the three assertions in that statement are true. It is indeed the case that today's tobacco marketplace is rapidly evolving. And it is also true that there has been a surge in youth use of novel products like e-cigarettes.

However, it is not true that the progress we have made in reducing youth smoking is being threatened by youth experimentation with e-cigarettes. The only way that our progress in reducing youth smoking could be threatened by e-cigarette experimentation is if e-cigarettes were a gateway to youth smoking or if e-cigarettes were as hazardous as smoking.

We already know that FDA is not sure that smoking is any worse for your health than using an electronic cigarette. Now, it appears that the FDA is sure that electronic cigarettes are a gateway to youth smoking, even though there is no evidence to support that contention and there is preliminary evidence to the contrary.

This story is troubling to me because it suggests that despite prior rhetoric about a "continuum of risk" of different nicotine-containing products, when it comes down to it, the FDA actually views all these products in the same way. And with that comes the fear that the FDA plans to regulate e-cigarettes in much the same way as real cigarettes, which would be a public health disaster.

Here are four major reasons why FDA regulating e-cigarettes in the same way as tobacco cigarettes would be a public health disaster:

1. Requiring Approval of New Products Under the Act Would Prevent Safer and More Effective Products from Entering the Market

Electronic cigarettes are relatively new products and even within the
past year or two, substantial advances have been made that have improved
the safety and effectiveness of these products. For example, most of
the electronic cigarette juice used to be manufactured overseas; now,
there are U.S. companies which manufacture the juice under very tightly
controlled conditions. Advances have also been made in terms of making
electronic cigarettes more similar to active smoking, and therefore more
effective for smoking cessation.

If electronic cigarettes are made subject to the new products provision
of the Tobacco Act, there will no longer be an opportunity for further
advancement. Such a move by the FDA would freeze the current market and
would ensure that the least effective products remain the only ones on
the market. It would preclude the development of better and more
effective electronic cigarettes and e-liquids, thus hindering the
ability of these products to play an increasingly important role in
getting people off of cigarettes. In my view, this would be a public
health disaster because these products are the single most promising
intervention that could potentially save millions of lives by
successfully capturing a substantial portion of the existing and future
tobacco cigarette market.

2. Adopting the Substantial Equivalent Requirements for Electronic
Cigarettes Could Result in the Removal of Many Products from the Market

Strictly speaking, a deeming regulation could potentially make
electronic cigarettes introduced into the market after 2007 subject to a
requirement that they apply for a substantial equivalence
determination, something that might be impossible under the current
framework that the FDA has established for such determinations as they
apply to tobacco cigarettes. This would be a disaster because it would
remove many brands of electronic cigarettes from the market and could
result in a large number of vapers returning to cigarette smoking.

3. Adopting the Modified Risk Product Provisions for Electronic
Cigarettes Would Force Companies to Hide the Truth from Consumers

Although there is abundant scientific evidence that using electronic
cigarettes is much safer than smoking, companies could not inform their
customers of the truth. Doing so would make their products a modified
risk product, and therefore they cannot make such claims without
approval (a process that may be impossible, given the way the modified
risk rules have been written). Even telling consumers that electronic
cigarettes do not contain tobacco and therefore eliminate most of the
thousands of chemicals present in tobacco cigarettes would constitute a
modified risk claim, and could not be made if they suggest to consumers
that vaping is safer than smoking (which of course is exactly what this
fact would and should suggest).

Ironically, the modified risk provisions of the Tobacco Act - if applied
to electronic cigarettes - would accomplish exactly the opposite of
their intended purpose. They are intended to prevent companies from
deceiving consumers about the risks of tobacco products. If applied to
electronic cigarettes, they would ensure that consumers are deceived about those risks.4. A Deeming Regulation that Makes Electronic Cigarettes Subject to
Chapter IX Would Force Companies to Hide from Consumers the Truth about
the Potential Usefulness of These Products in Smoking Cessation and
Reduction

A regulation that simply deems electronic cigarettes subject to chapter
IX provisions could potentially preclude electronic cigarette marketers
from mentioning that these products may be useful for smoking cessation,
because such a claim might be interpreted as a drug claim and therefore
put the product under the realm of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
What is needed is a guidance from the agency which makes it clear that a
simple statement of the truth - that these products may be helpful to
smokers in quitting or cutting down on the amount they smoke - will not
be interpreted as a drug claim.

Summary

The bottom line is that a deeming regulation that makes electronic
cigarettes subject to chapter IX of the Family Smoking Prevention and
Tobacco Control Act, rather than carving out a specific and separate
regulatory framework for this product that contains no tobacco, would
constitute a public health disaster. It would hinder the development of
safer and more effective products, force many vapers to return to
cigarette smoking, cause massive confusion, create a black market, and
force companies to deceive their customers about the health risks and
usefulness of these products.

There is no justification for regulating a product that contains no
tobacco in a way that is identical to products that actually contain
tobacco. If the FDA has any ability to see the big picture with regards
to the public's health, it will avoid this disastrous pitfall.

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Sharing my concerns that the FDA deeming regulation will decimate much of the electronic cigarette industry, Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma has introduced legislation that would essentially overrule the FDA and statutorily set the "grandfather" date for electronic cigarettes as the effective date of the FDA deeming regulation.

The significance of this legislation is that it would allow all electronic cigarettes currently on the market (and all those on the market as of the effective date of FDA regulation) to remain on the market without having to submit complex and resource-intensive new product or substantial equivalence applications.

If the final FDA regulations look anything like the proposed deeming regulation, then every electronic cigarette product on the market will have to submit a new product application (because no product on the market today is "substantially equivalent" to products on the market as of February 2007). To do this successfully, a company would have to demonstrate that its product is beneficial to the public's health, taking into account not only product users but those who do not currently use e-cigarettes but who might start vaping because of the availability of the product.

This is an incredibly complex and difficult showing because a manufacturer or distributor would have to demonstrate that:

1. Every one of their products is safer than smoking.
2. Every one of their products will help smokers quit.
3. The uptake of their products by non-users (especially youth) will not offset the public health benefits that accrue to product users.

Most e-cigarette companies, distributors, and retailers are very small businesses that do not have the personnel, expertise, or resources required to prepare these applications and to deal successfully with the difficult scientific questions that arise. Even scientists and other experts in the tobacco control field have not yet determined how one can properly weigh the benefits and risks of electronic cigarettes, much less to do so with one particular product at a time.

This requirement makes no sense whatsoever for electronic cigarettes. When applied to regular cigarettes, it could at least make some sense because one could argue that there is no need to introduce new cigarettes to the market unless they are somehow safer than existing products. However, all e-cigarettes are safer than existing tobacco cigarettes. So there's absolutely no public health benefits to be gained from requiring e-cigarettes to go through this complicated process.

Moreover, such a process would create a nightmare of a bureaucracy at the FDA, wasting precious time and resources. The FDA already has all it can handle just trying to process the thousands of substantial equivalence applications it faces for regular cigarettes. Tying the agency down with tens of thousands of additional applications for e-cigarettes makes no sense.

As I have argued before, the FDA should simply promulgate rules that set minimum safety standards that all e-cigarettes must meet. These would address issues such as battery safety, overcharge protection, leak-proof cartridges, childproof packaging, basic quality control and assurance procedures, and some sort of regulation of temperature to minimize or prevent the formation of formaldehyde and other unwanted and unnecessary degradation products of propylene glycol and glycerin.

If the FDA deeming regulations do not change the grandfather date from 2007 to at least the effective date of regulation, then Representative Cole's bill will be absolutely necessary to protect the e-cigarette market and ensure that smokers have full access to all available options for smoking cessation.

Monday, May 18, 2015

Last month, Pax Labs, Inc. introduced a new e-cigarette technology: the use of nicotine salts rather than free-base nicotine as a core ingredient of the e-liquid. The new product, called the JUUL, provides a blood nicotine absorption profile which is similar to that for traditional cigarettes, unlike most electronic cigarettes currently on the market.

"While about 60 percent
of smokers have at one time or another tried e-cigs, few come back to
them. The majority return to traditional cigarettes, in part because
e-cigs don’t provide the same sensation as lighting up a Marlboro or
other brand. For the past two years, Pax Labs has been working to change that —
first by attempting to reverse engineer the chemistry behind how
people’s bodies react when smoking, and then by building a vaporizing
device to deploy that technology. The result is an extremely attractive
and compact little device that packs the same amount of nicotine as a
pack of cigarettes into a tiny liquid-nicotine cartridge. One of the key findings in the development of its liquid-nicotine
“juice” was the use of nicotine salts found in leaf-based tobacco as the
core ingredient. By extracting and using those salts, Pax is able to
create an experience that is more like smoking than other e-cigarettes
on the market. That includes offering up two times the nicotine strength
and three times the vapor quality of competing products. To figure out if that was true, Pax commissioned study to look at the
impact of the Juul compared with traditional combustible cigarettes and
other e-cigarettes. Here’s a graph of what they found:"

One of the reasons why some smokers do not find e-cigarettes satisfactory as an alternative is that they do not feel the nicotine "hit" that they are used to with their regular cigarettes. This is most likely because nicotine delivery in most e-cigarettes is not nearly as good as in tobacco cigarettes. In particular, the peak blood nicotine level is not nearly as high as with traditional cigarettes. Without this "spike" in blood nicotine, users may not feel a nicotine "hit." The JUUL addresses this problem by using nicotine in its salt form, leading to a more dramatic spike in peak blood nicotine levels.

New Methods to Regulate E-Cigarette Temperature

While the media have recently spread misinformation about "scary" levels of formaldehyde produced by some e-cigarettes, there have been products on the market that have overheating protection, thus avoiding the formaldehyde problem completely. By controlling heater temperature and output wattage, it is possible to carefully control the heating profile of the e-liquid, thus optimizing vapor production while eliminating the problem of formaldehyde formation. This explains why testing of products such as Vuse revealed no detectable level of formaldehyde.

There are companies which develop hardware that can be used by e-cigarette manufacturers to prevent overheating. One such company is Evolv Inc., whose hardware allows both open and closed vapor delivery systems to enjoy temperature regulation and overheating protection. Thus, it is now possible for users to be able to control the voltage applied to their personal vaporizers, while at the same time not taking a risk of overheating the e-liquid and being exposed to degradation products such as formaldehyde and acrolein. In other words, it is not necessary for the FDA to ban all open systems. Instead, it can simply require temperature regulation and overheating protection.

The Rest of the Story

These examples of major innovations in e-cigarette and personal vapor delivery systems reveal the folly of the FDA's proposed electronic cigarette regulatory scheme. The centerpiece of that scheme is the requirement for all new and existing products to submit new product applications. The net effect of such a regulation would be to stifle innovation. Such a regulation would put a large and unnecessary obstacle in the way of the development, introduction, and marketing of new, innovative, more effective, and safer products.

The electronic cigarette space is perhaps one of the most rapidly evolving of any consumer product. The newer products on the market are almost uniformly more effective and safer than the older products. It therefore makes absolutely no sense to require these new products to be required to obtain pre-approval. If anything, it is the older products - which do not have safety protection characteristics that are readily available - that should have to justify their presence on the market.

My view is that there is no justification for any requirement for product pre-approval, either for existing or new electronic cigarettes. Instead, the FDA should simply promulgate a set of minimum safety and quality control standards for all products. By making overheating protection part of these standards, the agency can prevent the formaldehyde and acrolein problem and put an end to the hysteria.

One of the major flaws of the arguments being made by e-cigarette opponents is that these arguments are largely based on antiquated systems. For example, the FDA is still talking about the diethylene glycol problem, even though that problem was solved years ago. It is only a matter of time before these recent advances in technology reach all e-cigarette and vapor delivery systems. Thus, the question is not whether electronic cigarettes on the market in 2007 have net public health benefits, but whether the e-cigarettes on the market in the future will have net public health benefits.

The answer is clearly yes, but the degree to which those benefits are realized depends largely on how the FDA chooses to regulate these products. If the FDA requires new product applications, it will stifle innovation and slow down the evolution of safety and effectiveness improvements. However, if the agency instead eschews the formation of a huge bureaucracy in favor of simply establishing minimum safety standards, it can help maximize the benefits of electronic cigarettes in protecting the public's health by optimizing the ability of these alternative nicotine delivery products to compete successfully with traditional combusted tobacco cigarettes.

Sunday, May 17, 2015

According to a recent article in the Quincy (MA) Patriot-Ledger, there is no evidence that smoking is any more hazardous than vaping. Since vaping has not yet been associated with any definite health harms, this means that it is possible that smoking is a quite benign behavior.

Obviously, this is nonsense. Nevertheless, anti-smoking groups and advocates continue to spew this false information to the public.

The article states that:

"Some teens think "vaping" is safer than smoking cigarettes, but there isn't any research to support that belief."

Where did the newspaper reporter get that idea? Apparently, from anti-smoking advocates in Massachusetts who she interviewed for the article, and from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which continues to lie to the public about the lack of severity of the harms of cigarette smoking.

An anti-smoking group in Massachusetts apparently told the reporter that:

"public health advocates are seeing gains in reducing smoking rates among
teenagers suddenly reversed in recent years by the mounting popularity
of the e-cigarette... ."

This is nonsense. Gains in reducing smoking rates among teenagers have not been reversed by the increasing use of e-cigarettes. The only way this would be true is if vaping was just as hazardous, or nearly as hazardous, as cigarette smoking. Otherwise, decreases in smoking are not going to be offset, neutralized, or even worse - reversed - by an increase in e-cigarette experimentation.

Suggesting that e-cigarette experimentation is reversing progress in reducing smoking, in light of the fact that we just reached a historic low in youth smoking, is tantamount to arguing that e-cigarette experimentation is just as bad as smoking. Why in the world would anti-smoking groups want to equate the harms of cigarette smoking - which kills hundreds of thousands of Americans each year - with the incredibly low health risks of e-cigarette vapor, which is not known to have ever caused a death or serious illness?

The Rest of the Story

Thanks to the efforts of the FDA, CDC, and many anti-smoking groups, we are starting to see a decline in the public's appreciation of the severe hazards of smoking. A substantial proportion of the public does not believe that smoking is any more hazardous than vaping. This creates a dangerous state of affairs, because it will discourage from quitting many smokers who might otherwise have quit using e-cigarettes. And it will also cause many ex-smokers who quit via e-cigarettes to return to smoking.

In fact, we are already starting to see some signs of a reduction in what was previously an exponential rise in electronic cigarettes sales in the United States. This is good news for tobacco cigarettes sales and bad news for the public's health.

It is time for our federal, state, and local public health agencies and anti-smoking groups to re-examine their campaign of deception against electronic cigarettes. They need to consider the damaging effect of their messages on the public's appreciation of the hazards of smoking. By equating e-cigarettes and regular cigarettes, they are inadvertently, but effectively, undermining decades of progress in educating the public about the hazards of smoking.

It used to be that the Tobacco Institute and tobacco companies were the ones who undermined the public's appreciation of the hazards of smoking. I find it ironic, and sad, that in 2015, the cigarette companies have relinquished that role, but the anti-smoking groups and health agencies have taken it up.

Thursday, May 14, 2015

It used to be the tobacco industry that refused to acknowledge that its products were any more hazardous than non-tobacco consumer products, but today it is Harvard Medical School (HMS) which is refusing to make that acknowledgment.

The Rest of the Story

In a Harvard Health Publication from HMS, the Medical School refuses to admit that cigarette smoking is any more hazardous than vaping, which involves no tobacco and no combustion and has been demonstrated to greatly improve the health of smokers who make the switch.

The newsletter asks the question "Are e-cigarettes safer than regular cigarettes? and then goes on to talk only about the risks of electronic cigarettes, leaving the reader with the clear impression that the answer is a resounding "No."

Here is the complete "answer":

"E-cigarettes do not burn tobacco. So people who use them aren’t getting tar, carbon monoxide, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, and other potentially toxic compounds in cigarette smoke. But the liquid in the cartridges contain other chemicals. One study showed immediate harmful changes in lung function
after smoking an e-cigarette as have been seen after smoking a regular
cigarette. E-cigarettes are so new that experts don’t know if inhaling
the vapor they produce causes cancer or other health problems. Another
unknown is whether second-hand e-cigarette vapor poses any danger."

"Nicotine in e-cigarettes has the same
effect on the body as the nicotine in cigarettes. It is addictive and
increases heart rate. One underplayed danger of e-cigarettes is nicotine
poisoning. The nicotine in the cartridges can be absorbed through the
skin or get into the eyes. Common symptoms include nausea, vomiting, and
eye irritation. Cartridges contain high amounts of nicotine that can be
fatal if a child eats or drinks the fluid."

"The FDA regulates many forms of tobacco, but not e-cigarettes. That may change soon. The FDA
is seeking authority over more smoking products, including
e-cigarettes. That means the agency would be able to ban sales to
children and insist that package labeling is accurate. Until then, the
amount of nicotine in a cartridge may be more or less than what is on
the package. The FDA would also be able to require that e-cigarette packaging includes health warnings, if such warnings are warranted."

So after all is said and done, not a word is spoken about the risks of smoking while multiple risks of e-cigarettes are provided. The reader is left with the clear impression that electronic cigarettes are just as harmful as, if not more harmful than tobacco cigarettes.

The newsletter then asks the question of whether e-cigarettes can aid in smoking cessation. It clearly wants to answer this question with a resounding "No." However, the scientific evidence does not support such a conclusion. So rather than admitting that a clinical trial showed e-cigarettes to be effective for smoking cessation, the article uses a sleight of hand and states that e-cigarettes have not been shown to be any more effective than the nicotine patch, implying to the reader that e-cigarettes don;t help smokers quit.

But the truth is that the clinical trial found that e-cigarettes are just as effective for smoking cessation as the nicotine patch. Since the nicotine patch is a well-accepted, FDA-approved smoking cessation treatment, one must conclude that e-cigarettes are also a legitimate smoking cessation treatment.

The newsletter fails to admit that, most likely because it has a strong anti-e-cigarette bias.

The newsletter then goes on to lie to its readers by stating that: "studies suggest that smoking e-cigarettes is likely to lead to smoking regular cigarettes studies suggest that smoking e-cigarettes is likely to lead to smoking regular cigarettes." I challenge the newsletter to provide even a single study which provides credible evidence that using e-cigarettes leads to smoking.

Moreover, calling the use of e-cigarettes "smoking" is extremely (and intentionally) deceptive. Vaping is not smoking because there is no smoke. There is no combustion. There is no tobacco.

These are facts which Harvard Medical School apparently doesn't want you to know.

The article concludes that to address the problem of youth use of e-cigarettes,parents should talk to their kids about not using tobacco: "It’s never too early to talk with your kids about avoiding tobacco." The rest of the story is that kids who use e-cigarettes are avoiding tobacco.

Why does the Harvard Medical School have to lie to the readers of its health newsletter?

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Yesterday, I discussed a class action lawsuit filed in California against Blu e-cigarettes (owned by Lorillard) which contends that Blu's marketing is false because its e-cigarettes are actually no healthier or safer than regular tobacco cigarettes. I explained that the lawsuit is unfounded, both because the company never claimed that its product is safer than cigarettes and because even if it did, such a claim would be truthful.

Today, after reading the actual text of the complaint, I am able to report that the complaint is so unscientific that it actually asserts that just five minutes of vaping an e-cigarette poses a significant risk of experiencing a heart attack.

And where did the plaintiffs get this idea? From the California Department of Public Health, which I have shown has disseminated multiple lies about e-cigarettes.

According to the complaint: "Preliminary studies conducted by the California Department of Public Health have also shown that smoking an electronic cigarette containing nicotine for just five minutes can cause similar lung irritation, inflammation, and effect on blood vessels as smoking a traditional cigarette, which poses a significant risk of heart attacks and cardiac problems."

The Rest of the Story

The rest of the story is that there is no evidence that using an electronic cigarette for five minutes poses a significant risk of a heart attack. Moreover, it is simply not true that vaping for five minutes can cause similar lung inflammation and effect on blood vessels as smoking a traditional cigarette. Studies have clearly shown that unlike cigarettes, e-cigarettes do not impair lung function as measured by spirometry. Also unlike cigarettes, e-cigarettes do not appear to cause endothelial dysfunction. Furthermore, switching from cigarettes to e-cigarettes results in significant improvement in symptoms and objective signs of respiratory disease.

It's difficult to blame the plaintiffs because they appear to be simply repeating information that has been disseminated by the FDA, CDC, and the California Department of Public Health, as I suggested yesterday. Today, after reading the complaint, I can assure readers that in fact the plaintiffs are relying on each of these three agencies. The complaint cites and quotes heavily from each of the three.

The complaint also asserts that Blu is guilty of false advertising because it fails to inform consumers that e-cigarettes contain tobacco-specific nitrosamines. What the complaint doesn't reveal is that the levels of tobacco-specific nitrosamines in e-cigarettes are at trace levels, that these levels are comparable to those in nicotine gum and patches, and that these levels are orders of magnitude lower than in tobacco cigarettes. If anything, this information provides strong evidence to support the contention that e-cigarettes are much safer than regular cigarettes, especially in terms of carcinogenic risk.

The plaintiffs also complain that Blu misleadingly states that its products produce "vapor, not tobacco smoke." While technically, it is an aerosol that is produced, the statement is basically true. E-cigarettes do not produce any tobacco smoke. And calling it vapor is unlikely to confer any different interpretation to the lay public than calling it an aerosol. In contrast, failing to inform consumers that the product does not produce tobacco smoke would represent an important omission that would greatly mislead consumers. It would in fact hide from consumers the two most important features of the product: (1) that it contains no tobacco; and (2) that it involves no combustion.

This is what happens when our health agencies lie to the public. It is collateral damage attributable to these agencies' zeal to demonize e-cigarettes, using any tactics available, whether ethical or not.

The lawsuit talks a lot about the deceptive campaigns of the tobacco industry in the past, but the ones who are now waging a campaign of deceit and lies are the health agencies -- including CDC, FDA, and California DPH - whose lives the plaintiffs have fallen for hook, line, and sinker.

According to an article from Courthouse News Service, a class action lawsuit has been filed in California against Lorillard and its Blu e-cigarettes based on the contention that the company falsely claimed that its product is safer than cigarettes.

According to the article: "Lorillard Tobacco Company falsely advertises its Blu brand of electronic
cigarettes as "safer" and "healthier" than standard smokes when they're
not, a class claims in state court. Lead plaintiff Larry Diek
says in a 50-page complaint filed last week in Orange County Superior
Court that he would not have purchased Blu e-cigarettes if he had known
about their dangers. ... Blu deceptively
advertises their e-cigarettes as a "safer," "healthier," and "smarter
alternative to traditional cigarettes" since they produce only vapor and
not tobacco smoke. But the vapor is actually "a concoction of chemicals
toxic to human cells," Diek says in his complaint."

The lawsuit is also described in an article published by the Orange County Times: "In a class action lawsuit filed in Orange County last month, lead
plaintiff Larry Diek says Lorillard Tobacco Company, known for such
brands as Newport and Kent, is misleading consumers by claiming its
e-cigarette brand, called BLU, is a safer and healthier alternative to
traditional cigarettes. In his 58-page lawsuit, Diek said he
never would have purchased BLU e-cigarettes if the company had made him
aware of the dangers through proper warning labels. He is suing the
North Carolina-based tobacco giant for an unspecified amount in damages." ...

"In his lawsuit, Diek said ads such as, “Why quit? Switch to BLU,” are
misleading, since studies have shown that e-cigarettes contain harmful
additives. Among the studies cited in the lawsuit is one from the
University of California, Riverside, which found that the aerosol from
e-cigarettes contained toxic particles from tin, aluminum and other
metals."

The Rest of the Story

This is a completely frivolous lawsuit because it is based on a false contention. Blu e-cigarettes are not being falsely advertised as being safer, healthier, or a smarter alternative to traditional cigarettes because they are safer than cigarettes, healthier than cigarettes, and a smarter alternative to cigarettes.

You can't (successfully) sue a company for telling the truth.

The lawsuit is also frivolous because Blu doesn't actually make a claim that its products are safer than real cigarettes in the first place. In fact, the company is quite careful not to make such a claim, even though it would be completely accurate.

So where did the attorney and lead plaintiff get the false idea that electronic cigarettes are very bit as dangerous as the real ones?

Clearly, they got this idea from the deceptive claims being made by health groups, including the CDC, FDA, and California Department of Public Health.

The CDC has gone to great lengths of deception and dishonesty to try to convince the public that e-cigarettes are just another form of tobacco use and that they offer no advantages to regular cigarettes.

The FDA has told the public that it is not sure cigarette smoking is any more hazardous than vaping.

And the California Department of Public Health insisted that smoking is no worse than vaping.

The campaign of deception being waged by these groups is clearly working. It has successfully undermined the public's appreciation of the severe hazards of smoking. And now it is leading to frivoulous lawsuits against the electronic cigarette industry.

Thursday, May 07, 2015

The California chapter of the American Medical Association (AMA) has introduced a resolution to the 2015 Annual Meeting of the AMA, to be held June 6-10 in Chicago, which recommends the taxation of electronic cigarettes and a complete ban on e-cigarette advertising.

The effect of such a policy would be to protect Big Tobacco cigarette sales from competition. It is widely recognized among financial analysts that the more e-cigarettes sold, the lower cigarette sales drop. In fact, the finance minister of Manitoba recently concluded that an increase in e-cigarette use in the province will result in a significant decline in cigarette consumption. E-cigarettes are clearly serving as a substitute for real cigarettes. A ban on e-cigarette advertising would undoubtedly decrease e-cigarette consumption at the expense of an increase in smoking. Levying a tax on e-cigarettes would have the same effect.

Thus, the California chapter of the AMA is essentially acting to protect cigarette sales. Its resolution might appropriately be called the "Cigarette Sales Protection Resolution" or the "Huge Favor for Big Tobacco Resolution."

Interestingly, while the resolution calls for taxation of e-cigarettes and a ban on e-cigarette advertising, it does not call for a similar increase in cigarette taxes or a complete ban on cigarette advertising. It's also interesting to note that the AMA is not calling for a ban on alcohol advertising.

A ban on electronic cigarette advertising would almost certainly not pass Constitutional muster as it would violate the First Amendment. Specifically, it would never satisfy the fourth prong in the Central Hudson criteria: that the restriction on speech be no broader than absolutely necessary to advance the government's interest. Since the government's interest in this case is to protect youth from advertising exposure, there are less drastic ways of regulating such exposure, such as simply prohibiting advertising that targets children or which reaches a disproportionate youth audience. Certainly, a complete ban on advertising interferes with the company's right and need to reach adult smokers and is much broader than is needed to protect youth from substantial advertising exposure.

The Rest of the Story

It is bad enough that the California section of the AMA is aiding Big Tobacco by helping to protect cigarette company profits. But what makes it even worse is that they are lying to physicians nationwide in order to support this misplaced agenda.

First, the California AMA claims that: "Among U.S. adolescents, use of e-cigarettes may in fact serve as a gateway to nicotine addiction in their future." There is absolutely no evidence to support this contention. In fact, the existing evidence suggests that the opposite is true: it appears that e-cigarette use is deterring youth from the use of combustible cigarettes, and thus away from a high likelihood of a lifelong addiction to nicotine.

Second, the California AMA claims that: "research indicates that real world application of e-cigarette use is associated with significantly lower odds of quitting smoking combustible (traditional) cigarettes among U.S. adults." This is just not the case. The research shows, instead, that e-cigarettes are at least as effective as the nicotine patch in promoting smoking cessation. These products are not for everyone, but they clearly do not inhibit quitting. They aid quitting among many smokers. There is no evidence that any smoker using e-cigarettes would have quit smoking if only he or she had not tried the e-cigarette.

Third, and worst of all, the California AMA claims that: "Toxicity testing of e-cigarette vapor has shown the presence of toxic and carcinogenic substances comparable to those found in combustible cigarettes." This is a blatant lie. The truth is exactly the opposite. E-cigarette vapor contains levels of toxic and carcinogenic substances that are orders of magnitude lower than in tobacco smoke. In fact, e-cigarettes eliminate most of the thousands of toxins present in tobacco smoke.

The California AMA certainly has the right to promote any public policies it wants to, even if they are directly opposed to the protection of the public's health. But the California AMA does not have right to lie to physicians nationwide in order to support their misguided policies.

Tuesday, May 05, 2015

According to an article on the Voice of America web site, e-cigarette use among youth can lead to permanent brain damage.

According to the article:

"Dr. Jonathan Winickoff,
at Massachusetts General Hospital for Children and Harvard Medical
School, compared teens' experimenting with any nicotine product,
including electronic cigarettes, to "playing Russian roulette with the
brain." Winickoff works with the American Academy of Pediatrics to protect children from tobacco and secondhand smoke. "Essentially, this drug creates a biologic need that can be
permanent,” he told VOA. He said the effects include decreased working
memory, tension problems as adults, and increased rates of depression
and anxiety."

In the article, Jennifer Duke from RTI International made it clear that there is actually no evidence that e-cigarettes are a gateway to smoking. However, Dr. Winickoff apparently believes otherwise:

"Duke said there was "no definitive proof that the use of e-cigarettes
will lead to the use of tobacco products," a statement shared in the Tobacco Control
report. But Winickoff said his studies and experiences have led him to a
different conclusion. "It also sets up the adolescent brain for more
durable and stronger addiction pathways," he said, "not just for
nicotine, but for other substances such as cocaine, marijuana and other
drugs." Winickoff said the teen brain becomes dependent on nicotine much more
rapidly than the adult brain. "The most susceptible youth will lose
autonomy over tobacco use after just a few times. So before they even
know they’re addicted, they’ll first start wanting, then craving
nicotine whenever they go too long between uses," he said, "And more
exposure to nicotine at an early age will up-regulate nicotine receptors
more rapidly in those developing centers of the brain than in adults.
More receptors mean more craving."

The Rest of the Story

It is very important for readers and the public to understand that this is hysterical propaganda that is completely unsupported by any actual scientific evidence. The e-cigarette opponents are just basically making this stuff up, and they are distorting the science in the process.

Here are the few kernels of truth in the above claims:

First, it is true that in animal studies, nicotine administration can cause impaired brain development. In "adolescent" animals, the main concern is interference with full development of the pre-frontal cortex. In the few studies that have examined potential effects related to nicotine's interference with pre-frontal cortex development in humans, these effects have been demonstrated only in smokers, and they are most profound in smokers who initiated at an early age.

It is critical to recognize that there is no existing evidence that nicotine exposure itself is capable of impairing brain development in human adolescents. More importantly, there is no evidence that occasional and sporadic exposure to nicotine, as seems to occur with virtually all nonsmoking youth who experiment with e-cigarettes, causes any acute or permanent brain damage.

The second kernel of truth is that youth are more susceptible to smoking addiction than adults, and that a youth could become addicted to smoking after as few as 4 cigarettes. However, this relates to addiction to smoking, not addiction to e-cigarettes. There have never been any studies which have shown that exposure to a small number of e-cigarettes can cause a nonsmoking youth to become addicted to nicotine.

In fact, evidence from the UK suggests that virtually all regular e-cigarette users, who might potentially be addicted, are pre-existing smokers. Researchers were unable to find any nonsmoking youth who experimented with e-cigarettes and then became addicted to nicotine. Furthermore, no study has documented that any nonsmoking youth became addicted to smoking because of their having experimented with e-cigarettes.

The rest of the story is that at this point, e-cigarette opponents are essentially making up the facts as they go along in order to scare policy makers and the public about fictitious risks of electronic cigarette use.

Sadly, this is doing substantial public health damage because it is undermining the public's (including youth's) appreciation of the severe hazards of smoking. It is also discouraging youth smokers from switching to e-cigarettes. Moreover, it is discouraging adult smokers from quitting via e-cigarettes. And finally, it is encouraging smokers to continue smoking rather than try quitting using e-cigarettes.

After all, if e-cigarettes cause permanent brain damage, then why would anyone bother to switch from real cigarettes to fake ones. You might as well take on the risks of heart disease, lung obstruction, stroke, and cancer. Doesn't that seem better than permanent brain damage?

Ironically, while the American Academy of Pediatrics is warning the public that occasional exposure to almost pure nicotine in e-cigarettes is going to cause permanent brain damage, nowhere on their web site can I find any similar claim that smoking can cause brain damage!

The only place I can find the AAP speaking out about nicotine's effects on the developing brain are in the context of maternal smoking and secondhand smoke exposure among youth. Apparently, the fact that smoking is causing permanent brain damage to adolescents is not something of particular concern.

Frankly, the e-cigarette opponents have become so singularly obsessed with their personal attack on these products that they have completely forgotten about the devastating impact of smoking on both youth and adults. Smoking, and not e-cigarette use, is the single greatest threat to adolescent health that we face in 2015.

Not so if you listen to the e-cigarette opponents. Apparently, the biggest problem is the permanent brain damage that is occurring to millions of youth who are experimenting with e-cigarettes. Ironically, perhaps if youth going back to using real cigarettes instead of fake ones, the e-cig opponents will stop scaring the public about nicotine and adolescent brain damage.

Monday, May 04, 2015

Usually we look to physicians and health departments to provide us with accurate information about health risks. However, in the case of electronic cigarettes, physicians and health departments are disseminating false and misleading information. They are being joined by policy makers. All have fallen for the lies that CDC and the FDA have been spreading as part of their campaigns of deception regarding e-cigarettes.

Today, I provide one example of the misinformation being spread by each of these groups. The examples are all taken from two days: April 28th and 29th, 2015 (last Wednesday). This is just a small, two-day snapshot of the degree to which these groups are lying to and misleading the public. Imagine if we catalogued the lies over a one-month or one-year period. It is easy to see why these campaigns of deception are harming the public's health, undermining the public's appreciation of the severe hazards of smoking, and sacrificing the integrity of anti-nicotine groups that are abandoning science for ideology.

Physicians

In an April 29 commentary by two physicians, published in MedPageToday, two professors from the UC Davis School of Medicine tell the public that the goal of the electronic cigarette industry is to "renormalize" smoking. They write:

"We risk losing hard-won ground in the battle on smoking through the
so-called 'renormalization' of smoking that may attend the uncritical
acceptance of e-cigarettes, and that is a stated goal of the e-cigarette
industry."

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The goal of every one of the independent electronic cigarette companies is to get as many smokers as they can to switch as completely as they can from smoking to vaping. Thus, the clearly stated goal of the electronic industry is actually to denormalize smoking. The three cigarette companies that market e-cigarettes have stated that their goal is to build a new market segment as nicotine use shifts from cigarette smoking to non-combustible nicotine products over the upcoming decades.

So it is simply not true that the stated goal of the e-cigarette industry is to renormalize smoking. The very act of promoting these products as an alternative to real cigarettes means that the e-cigarette companies are acting to denormalize smoking. In fact, Craig Weiss, the CEO of one of the largest independent e-cigarette companies (NJOY), has stated that the value proposition of his company is to make cigarette smoking obsolete. That's a far cry from renormalizing smoking.

The reason why these physicians, and so many anti-smoking groups and advocates, argue that vaping will normalize smoking, is that they think seeing vapers going through motions that look like smoking will make smoking look glamorous. That's a ridiculous argument. It's like stating that bottled water companies are renormalizing drinking because people are going to see people going through the motions of drinking and that will make drinking alcohol look glamorous. People are not stupid. The can recognize the difference between vaping and smoking. What vaping will normalize is vaping, not smoking.

Health Departments

According to a "fact sheet" produced by the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department and publicized in an April 28 press release, electronic cigarettes can cause congestive heart failure and pmeumonia. The Department states:

This is an extremely misleading statement. These adverse effect reports are not able to determine whether e-cigarettes were actually the cause of the reported symptoms. Almost assuredly, the reported episodes of pneumonia and congestive heart failure are due to smoking, not vaping. It is disingenuous of the health department to make this claim. Moreover, the claim severely undermines the public's appreciation of the severe health effects of cigarette smoking, because it implies that someone who smokes cigarettes for many years and then experiments with electronic cigarettes is at risk of heart failure not from their history of smoking, but from their expermentation with vaping. Actually, it is virtually impossible that the vaping was the cause of the congestive heart failure because it takes many years, even decades, for heart failure to develop from smoking.

The "fact sheet" contains another lie. It argues that e-cigarette experimentation among youth leads to nicotine addiction and is a gateway to smoking. The health department states that:

"many kids who have never smoked cigarettes will start doing so after they become addicted to nicotine in e-cigarettes."

The truth is that there is absolutely no evidence that e-cigarettes are a gateway to smoking. There is also no evidence that nonsmoking youth who experiment with e-cigarettes are becoming addicted to nicotine. In fact, the current evidence suggets that e-cigarettes are a gateway away from smoking.

Politicians and Anti-Tobacco Groups

In an April 29 op-ed piece published in Roll Call, Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Robin Koval (president and CEO of the American Legacy Foundation) lie to the public by telling us that vaping involves "tobacco use." Referring to youth e-cigarette use, they state that:

"it can be awfully hard to find someone on the “pro” side of the argument for youth tobacco use in 2015."

This is untrue. Electronic cigarettes contain no tobacco so vaping is not a form of tobacco use. There is no tobacco in the product. Clearly, this statement is going to deceive the public into thinking that electronic cigarettes do contain tobacco and that vaping is just another form of tobacco use, like cigarette smoking.

It appears that there is no more anti-tobacco movement in the United States. Instead, there is now an anti-nicotine movement. The concern is not saving lives, but preventing any use of any substance that has addictive qualities or whose use involves motions that look like smoking. The end result is that the anti-nicotine movement now treats e-cigarettes no differently than real cigarettes, which are actually killing people. This severely undermines the public's appreciation of the hazards of smoking, takes the focus off of cigarette smoking, and completely distorts the public's perception of the true risks of smoking compared to vaping.

The Rest of the Story

Sadly, the rest of the story is that the newly-formed "anti-nicotine and anti-smoking motions" movement is no longer serving to protect the public's health, but is instead protecting the sale of a real killer: cigarettes. To make things worse, the movement is protecting cigarette sales while lying to the public and misleading us about the truth.

About Me

Dr. Siegel is a Professor in the Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health. He has 32 years of experience in the field of tobacco control. He previously spent two years working at the Office on Smoking and Health at CDC, where he conducted research on secondhand smoke and cigarette advertising. He has published nearly 70 papers related to tobacco. He testified in the landmark Engle lawsuit against the tobacco companies, which resulted in an unprecedented $145 billion verdict against the industry. He teaches social and behavioral sciences, mass communication and public health, and public health advocacy in the Masters of Public Health program.